Slashdot Mirror

Can you tell me in which article this "right to privacy" is? I seem to have missed it.

IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States

The Fourth Amendment protects "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV. The rights protected by the Fourth Amendment are "indispensable to the 'full enjoyment of personal security, personal liberty, and private property'; [and] they are to be regarded as of the very essence of constitutional liberty." Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 17 n.8 (1948). And these rights apply with particular force in the home, where the expectation of privacy is historically and legally entitled to the highest protection. A thermal imager scan of a private home at night without a warrant, which gathers information about activities and objects generating heat inside the home, violates those rights.

Further down in that document:

This constitutional right of privacy in the home does not depend on notions of trespass. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 353 (1967) (the existence of a violation "cannot turn upon the presence or absence of a physical intrusion into any given enclosure"); United States v. United States Dist. Ct., 407 U.S. 297, 313 (1972) (government interception of telephone conversations as violative of right of privacy as physical entry into the home). As this Court recognized over a hundred years ago: "It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, that constitutes the essence of the offense; but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty, and private property. . . which underlies and constitutes the essence of"a Fourth Amendment violation. Boyd, 116 U.S. at 630.

The First Amendment Protects Privacy of Association

The "close nexus" between the First Amendment freedoms of speech and assembly assures a freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas. See NAACP, 357 U.S. 449, 460 (1958). Effective advocacy of both public and private viewpoints--central to the First Amendment--is "undeniably enhanced by group association." Id. Freedom of association is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id., citing De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364; Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 530 (1992). The freedom of association encompasses the right to privacy of that association, and therefore prevents compelled disclosure of membership in an organization. NAACP, 357 U.S. at 459. Such a right is necessary to the freedom of expression, which depends upon the unrestricted flow of ideas, because the "inviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs." Id. at 462.

The Court Only Seventeen Years Ago: Deeply Torn Over Anti-Gay Sex Criminal Laws

In 1986, the Supreme Court took up the famous -- indeed, notorious -- case of Bowers v. Hardwick. The case arose when Michael Hardwick was arrested for violating Georgia's criminal ban on sodomy after police entered his home and found him in bed with another man.

In defending himself against the criminal charge, Hardwick challenged the constitutionality of Georgia's ban on sodomy. Specifically, he argued that his constitutional right to privacy included a right to engage in homosexual sex and, thus, meant that Georgia's sodomy law should be struck down.

As a legal matter, Hardwick's case involved one of the most difficult areas of constitutional law. The Constitution doe

Just because you bring it in for one problem doesn't mean they won't go looking for other problems as well. This protects them and you. If you bring a car for an oil change but you also have squealing brakes or bald tires they are obligated to check it out and give you an idea of other problems. Same with a PC. You bring it in for one problem but they may go poking around the system to check for other things. I used to do PC support and if we had the system in-house we made sure the customer wasn't going to come back the next day complaining of something else that we'd "missed". Therefore we had to be thorough about checking it out. Certainly they shouldn't check every file, and they won't since it would take too much time for the money they get. However, if they check a few files and find lots of porn, they should suspect there may be malicious ad-ware, viruses, etc. that should be cleaned before returning it to the customer. If in the process they find something obviously illegal they should call the police, which they did.

At that point, the police do not have to obtain a warrant to search since you have given up the resonable expectation of privacy. More specifically with the 4th amendment you have allowed a search and seizure by turning over control of the system.

Check out
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/am endment04/04.html#1

Additional issues arise in determining the validity of consent to search when consent is given not by the suspect but by a third party. In the earlier cases, third party consent was deemed sufficient if that party ''possessed common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected.'' 85 Now, however, actual common authority over the premises is no longer required; it is enough if the searching officer had a reasonable but mistaken belief that the third party had common authority and could consent to the search.

On the other hand, you have a multitude of excuses for piracy. The "copyright infringement isn't theft" is my favorite, as it in no way justifies breaking of the law.

And no one says it does. That statement is used as a response to misinformed copyright advocates who claim that it is theft (despite the Supreme Court finding that it isn't). Surely you've seen arguments like "Why would you download music? You wouldn't steal a CD off the shelf, would you? It's the same thing!"

Well, no, it isn't the same thing, and it's quite reasonable for someone to have moral objections to actual theft but not to illicit copying.

Weddington brought a lawsuit on behalf of Norma McCorvey, an unmarried pregnant woman seeking to overturn the Texas anti-abortion law. The name "Jane Roe", a standard alias for anonymous plaintiffs, was used to protect McCorvey's identity. After filing the initial lawsuit, the case was expanded to include several other plaintiffs, including James Hubert Hallford, a licensed physician who had been arrested for violations of the Texas abortion statutes; "John and Mary Doe", aliases for a married couple whose doctor had advised against pregnancy; and all others who might be in the same position as McCorvey and the Does.

The reason why he could only get $50,000 dollars was because he could only get $500 per each count of the law that Richter violated. Richter settled with Spitzer for 80 counts of violating GBL Section 350-d, the False Advertising Statute. That amounts to $40k plus an extra $10k for legal expenses of the state of New York.

I'd check your facts before you bash Spitzer. The legislature makes the laws and the Attorney General enforces them. The paltry $500 is the fault of the legislature in this case. You can check out this link on Spitzer's anti-spyware case for more info on the $500 per count. The law itself is printed here. The PDF of Richter's settlement is here.

the fair use of a copyrighted work, including [blah blah blah] is not an infringement of copyright.

...as it was in Roe vs. Wade where a "right to privacy" which is ennumerated in no way, shape, or form in the constitution was found by the SCOTUS

Roe vs Wade wasn't the first USSC ruling that identified the right to privacy. In the Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 17 n.8 case of 1948 the USSC ruled "The rights protected by the Fourth Amendment are ÃÂ"indispensable to the ÃÂ'full enjoyment of personal security, personal liberty, and private propertyÃÂ'; [and] they are to be regarded as of the very essence of constitutional liberty.ÃÂ" continuing "And these rights apply with particular force in the home, where the expectation of privacy is historically and legally entitled to the highest protection."

In NAACP, 357 U.S. at 462 "Privacy of association is especially vital where revelation of membership has exposed members to physical, social, or economic threats or hostility. See id; see also Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479 (1960). In order to protect this privacy, the Court has held that compelled disclosure of oneÃÂ's membership in an organization engaged in advocacy of a particular belief interferes with the freedom of assembly. See NAACP, 357 U.S. at 462."

Also I find on this page Samuel Warren & Louis Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890). I only looked at a few results when I searched www.findlaw.com but it returned 171 results when I searched for "right to privacy" "supreme court" so I'm pretty sure I can find other cases that are older than Roe vs Wade.

...as it was in Roe vs. Wade where a "right to privacy" which is ennumerated in no way, shape, or form in the constitution was found by the SCOTUS

Roe vs Wade wasn't the first USSC ruling that identified the right to privacy. In the Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 17 n.8 case of 1948 the USSC ruled "The rights protected by the Fourth Amendment are ÃÂ"indispensable to the ÃÂ'full enjoyment of personal security, personal liberty, and private propertyÃÂ'; [and] they are to be regarded as of the very essence of constitutional liberty.ÃÂ" continuing "And these rights apply with particular force in the home, where the expectation of privacy is historically and legally entitled to the highest protection."

In NAACP, 357 U.S. at 462 "Privacy of association is especially vital where revelation of membership has exposed members to physical, social, or economic threats or hostility. See id; see also Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479 (1960). In order to protect this privacy, the Court has held that compelled disclosure of oneÃÂ's membership in an organization engaged in advocacy of a particular belief interferes with the freedom of assembly. See NAACP, 357 U.S. at 462."

Also I find on this page Samuel Warren & Louis Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890). I only looked at a few results when I searched www.findlaw.com but it returned 171 results when I searched for "right to privacy" "supreme court" so I'm pretty sure I can find other cases that are older than Roe vs Wade.

...as it was in Roe vs. Wade where a "right to privacy" which is ennumerated in no way, shape, or form in the constitution was found by the SCOTUS

Roe vs Wade wasn't the first USSC ruling that identified the right to privacy. In the Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 17 n.8 case of 1948 the USSC ruled "The rights protected by the Fourth Amendment are ÃÂ"indispensable to the ÃÂ'full enjoyment of personal security, personal liberty, and private propertyÃÂ'; [and] they are to be regarded as of the very essence of constitutional liberty.ÃÂ" continuing "And these rights apply with particular force in the home, where the expectation of privacy is historically and legally entitled to the highest protection."

In NAACP, 357 U.S. at 462 "Privacy of association is especially vital where revelation of membership has exposed members to physical, social, or economic threats or hostility. See id; see also Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479 (1960). In order to protect this privacy, the Court has held that compelled disclosure of oneÃÂ's membership in an organization engaged in advocacy of a particular belief interferes with the freedom of assembly. See NAACP, 357 U.S. at 462."

Also I find on this page Samuel Warren & Louis Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890). I only looked at a few results when I searched www.findlaw.com but it returned 171 results when I searched for "right to privacy" "supreme court" so I'm pretty sure I can find other cases that are older than Roe vs Wade.

...as it was in Roe vs. Wade where a "right to privacy" which is ennumerated in no way, shape, or form in the constitution was found by the SCOTUS

Roe vs Wade wasn't the first USSC ruling that identified the right to privacy. In the Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 17 n.8 case of 1948 the USSC ruled "The rights protected by the Fourth Amendment are ÃÂ"indispensable to the ÃÂ'full enjoyment of personal security, personal liberty, and private propertyÃÂ'; [and] they are to be regarded as of the very essence of constitutional liberty.ÃÂ" continuing "And these rights apply with particular force in the home, where the expectation of privacy is historically and legally entitled to the highest protection."

In NAACP, 357 U.S. at 462 "Privacy of association is especially vital where revelation of membership has exposed members to physical, social, or economic threats or hostility. See id; see also Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479 (1960). In order to protect this privacy, the Court has held that compelled disclosure of oneÃÂ's membership in an organization engaged in advocacy of a particular belief interferes with the freedom of assembly. See NAACP, 357 U.S. at 462."

Also I find on this page Samuel Warren & Louis Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890). I only looked at a few results when I searched www.findlaw.com but it returned 171 results when I searched for "right to privacy" "supreme court" so I'm pretty sure I can find other cases that are older than Roe vs Wade.

...as it was in Roe vs. Wade where a "right to privacy" which is ennumerated in no way, shape, or form in the constitution was found by the SCOTUS

Roe vs Wade wasn't the first USSC ruling that identified the right to privacy. In the Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 17 n.8 case of 1948 the USSC ruled "The rights protected by the Fourth Amendment are ÃÂ"indispensable to the ÃÂ'full enjoyment of personal security, personal liberty, and private propertyÃÂ'; [and] they are to be regarded as of the very essence of constitutional liberty.ÃÂ" continuing "And these rights apply with particular force in the home, where the expectation of privacy is historically and legally entitled to the highest protection."

In NAACP, 357 U.S. at 462 "Privacy of association is especially vital where revelation of membership has exposed members to physical, social, or economic threats or hostility. See id; see also Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479 (1960). In order to protect this privacy, the Court has held that compelled disclosure of oneÃÂ's membership in an organization engaged in advocacy of a particular belief interferes with the freedom of assembly. See NAACP, 357 U.S. at 462."

Also I find on this page Samuel Warren & Louis Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890). I only looked at a few results when I searched www.findlaw.com but it returned 171 results when I searched for "right to privacy" "supreme court" so I'm pretty sure I can find other cases that are older than Roe vs Wade.

Is there really a "right" to privacy where this is concerned?

The US Supreme Court, USSC, has ruled there is a right to privacy more than once. In one case it ruled that the First Amendment freedom of association encompasses the right to privacy of that association. In the Roe v. Wade case the USSC found what amounts to right to privacy.

Let me be the first to say that we already have a system in place that solves this exact problem. Its called the MedicAlert System (commonly found in a metal bracelet).

My wife, a diabetic and celiac, wears one, and it works perfectly for identifying and retrieving the medical records of the patient in seconds. No need for an invasive, implantable chip, and the best part... you can take it off if you don't want to wear it (such as when attending rallies where carrying identification can be a problem).

Why should we enforce people who are not sick or those who do not have a "rough" medical history, to have a chip implanted in them?

I'll be the first in line to be gouging this out of my arm with a very sharp scalpel or other object. Sorry, I prefer my 4th Amendment Rights to remain true:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No thank you, you can't have my encryption keys (and yes, I would rather die before giving up those keys, even if they simply secured my cornbread recipe), and you most-certainly can NOT have my medical history, without my direct consent or approval, even in life-or-death situations.

U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Ah, yes. Right after the SEC cut the holding period. Until 1997, you usually had to hold restricted stock for two years. The reduction from two years to six months fueled the dot-com bubble. LNUX launched at $239.00. Six months later it was at $34.00. At two years, it was at $3.21. So the insiders made money, but nobody else did.

Oh, yeah, the special prosecutor working on his case before the Grand Jury for an action which could not possibly be a crime. That makes lots of sense. If the answer was this obvious, why hasn't the administration used this obvious defense? Maybe because "Sure he did it but it wasn't a crime" wouldn't fool said special prosecutor? Then again, maybe the prosecutor is only working on a perjury charge. We don't know, but it's pretty obvious that if the answer was as simple as you claim then Rove's lawyer wouldn't have to resort to the "but he didn't mention her by name" defense. Right? If you disagree, call Rove and maybe you can replace his council.

last overseas undercover in 1997 and the name became public in 2003

The question isn't when the name became public, it is when it was leaked to an unauthorized source. Read the law.

the leaker would have to knowingly leak the information with the purpose of causing harm to the agent. Simply leaking the name to providie proof positive that her husband is a liar wouldn't make the leak a crime.

That is simply not true. I hesitate to say lie, but that statement is wrong.

The law is here. There is no mention of intent to cause harm. Section a, which by itself carries a maximum ten year sentence, only specifies that the leaker had classified knowledge of the agent's identity and revealed that identity, knowing it was classified*. Section b carries a five year sentence for when a leaker has access to classified information and learns (I presume this means "is able to deduce" or it would be no different than a) the agent's identity as a result, and leaks the identifying information. Section c, the closest to the misinformation in that article, requires knowledge of an agent's identity being classified and a "pattern of activities" intended to disclose an agents identity while the leaker "has reason to believe" doing so would be harmful to to intelligence activities. This is the most general clause of the law, but still no mention of intent to harm.

The funny thing is that in the second article (which is not the one which contains the misinformation, by the way, despite the arrangement of links and quoted paragraphs) is mostly about how the law is extending beyond its original intent of going after those with classified information and is being used against the press. Well, guess what? The guy the press was protecting is exactly who the law was intended to go after -- those with privileged access to classified information who leak it in the first place.

* This is why Rove disclaimed having seen the memo that was distributed among the rest of the administration about Plame's identity being kept secret. Oh, but it was never a problem to begin with, he just forgot to mention that part. Seriously, call him up and tell him to fire his lawyer.

The indictment from virginia's court has all of the IPs of the compromised computers, which are carefully 'hidden' as black text on black background text.

I'm jealous that the UK has *any* time limit, be it two weeks or three months. I don't believe the US has ever clearly defined "speed trial," though I could be wrong.

You would be wrong. The actual definition depends on the circumstances, but there is a large body of case law that sets out the limits as to what is required to fulfill a defendants 6th amaendment rights. Here is a helpful primer if you are actually curious.

I just did a little research into this, and I am now certain that a court in the US would not allow compelled production of encryption keys.

Read Andresen v. Maryland:

"Thus, although the Fifth Amendment may protect an individual from complying with a subpoena for the production of his personal records in his possession because the very act of production may constitute a compulsory authentication of incriminating information, see Fisher v. United States, supra, a seizure of the same materials by law enforcement officers differs in a crucial respect - the individual against whom the search is directed is not required to aid in the discovery, production, or authentication of incriminating evidence."

The case that actually creates this right is Boyd v. United States. In fact, that case held that personal papers could not even be used against a defendant if they were seized pursuant to a valid warrant. Over the years though, other cases have weakened Boyd, and it no longer prohibits using personal papers if they have been seized and can be authenticated without testimony of the defendant.

As you pointed out, other cases make exceptions for tax records and for corporations.

If the government requires someone to provide their encryption key, it is effectively requiring them to do an act that admits "Yes, these files are mine." And that is not allowed under current case law interpreting the Fifth Amendment.

I just did a little research into this, and I am now certain that a court in the US would not allow compelled production of encryption keys.

Read Andresen v. Maryland:

"Thus, although the Fifth Amendment may protect an individual from complying with a subpoena for the production of his personal records in his possession because the very act of production may constitute a compulsory authentication of incriminating information, see Fisher v. United States, supra, a seizure of the same materials by law enforcement officers differs in a crucial respect - the individual against whom the search is directed is not required to aid in the discovery, production, or authentication of incriminating evidence."

The case that actually creates this right is Boyd v. United States. In fact, that case held that personal papers could not even be used against a defendant if they were seized pursuant to a valid warrant. Over the years though, other cases have weakened Boyd, and it no longer prohibits using personal papers if they have been seized and can be authenticated without testimony of the defendant.

As you pointed out, other cases make exceptions for tax records and for corporations.

If the government requires someone to provide their encryption key, it is effectively requiring them to do an act that admits "Yes, these files are mine." And that is not allowed under current case law interpreting the Fifth Amendment.

IAAAL (I am an American lawyer) and I don't know much about British law, but in case you're interested, stateside the answer would be that the Fifth Amendment only protects you against testimonial self-incrimination.

That is, you don't have to give testimony about yourself, but anything else--including documents that you wrote or filled out, like tax forms or order forms--is physical evidence rather than testimony, and not covered.

By analogy, the courts would say that you have to give your password so that they can investigate the physical evidence, but even if there is incriminating material there, you aren't giving self-incriminating testimony.

There is a short article about the legal framework here.

Again, this is all American law. Not what the poster was asking about, but maybe the British answer is similar.

You are right - California forbids non-competition clauses:

Section 16600 of the California Business and Professions Code provides that "every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void."

Google is based in California, but the contract was signed in Washington, so I'm not sure if that helps.

>This doesn't mean that any local government is able to decide for itself what constitues obscenity

Of course it does.

No it doesn't.

Looks like we'll only be able to solve this with relevant authority, since you failed to produce any to back up your statements, allow me.

1. The test for obscenity in Roth is "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest." Note the community standards are local only in the sense that they are to be determined (rather obviously) with respect to the standards in the state in which the respective obscenity law has been enacted (since the regulation of obscenity per se falls to the states). Given that obscenity is a question of fact, in practice this will come down to what the members of the jury consider "contemporary community standards" to be. Note also that the court raised the bar in Miller where two additional elements were required.

This is what allows municipal governments to outlaw strip joints and video porn stores.

Who then have the option of going to the courts to challenge the ordinance. If you read the case law I think you will see that both ought to win. Strip joints because they can argue artistic merit and because what they do is generally not "hard core", and porn shops because it is the obscenity of each individual article they sell that must be determined. Of course when it comes to issuing licenses to carry on business, or zoning commercial activities &tc the municipal government can make it awfully difficult to operate.

>You really think a court which ruled child pornography is protected speech

I think you misspoke here.

But you only think that because of you're not up to speed on this topic. You can rectify your ignorance somewhat by reading Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition . To summarize briefly. What makes child porn illegal is the involvement of children in its production. Writing, drawings, or photographs of underdeveloped adult models proporting to be minors is not illegal per se. Of course on a case by case basis such child porn might well be judged obscene, but by default child porn is protected speech.

government is the only entity capable of enforcing censorship at gunpoint

Lemme guess, you don't live in Sicily ;) I take your point. However, this does not necessarily mean that government can enforce censorship as effectivly as private bodies. Look at the information sieve that was the Soviet Union and compare that to the very effective censorship excercise by Walmart.

That makes government the entity you least want in control of any form of communication.

Whether I trust a government to control a form of communication, or indeed to censor, depends upon the nature of the government in question. Is it democratic, bound by the rule of law, not corrupt, does it as a matter of actual practice excercise its powers with honour and respect to convention &tc.?

>This doesn't mean that any local government is able to decide for itself what constitues obscenity

Of course it does.

No it doesn't.

Looks like we'll only be able to solve this with relevant authority, since you failed to produce any to back up your statements, allow me.

1. The test for obscenity in Roth is "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest." Note the community standards are local only in the sense that they are to be determined (rather obviously) with respect to the standards in the state in which the respective obscenity law has been enacted (since the regulation of obscenity per se falls to the states). Given that obscenity is a question of fact, in practice this will come down to what the members of the jury consider "contemporary community standards" to be. Note also that the court raised the bar in Miller where two additional elements were required.

This is what allows municipal governments to outlaw strip joints and video porn stores.

Who then have the option of going to the courts to challenge the ordinance. If you read the case law I think you will see that both ought to win. Strip joints because they can argue artistic merit and because what they do is generally not "hard core", and porn shops because it is the obscenity of each individual article they sell that must be determined. Of course when it comes to issuing licenses to carry on business, or zoning commercial activities &tc the municipal government can make it awfully difficult to operate.

>You really think a court which ruled child pornography is protected speech

I think you misspoke here.

But you only think that because of you're not up to speed on this topic. You can rectify your ignorance somewhat by reading Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition . To summarize briefly. What makes child porn illegal is the involvement of children in its production. Writing, drawings, or photographs of underdeveloped adult models proporting to be minors is not illegal per se. Of course on a case by case basis such child porn might well be judged obscene, but by default child porn is protected speech.

government is the only entity capable of enforcing censorship at gunpoint

Lemme guess, you don't live in Sicily ;) I take your point. However, this does not necessarily mean that government can enforce censorship as effectivly as private bodies. Look at the information sieve that was the Soviet Union and compare that to the very effective censorship excercise by Walmart.

That makes government the entity you least want in control of any form of communication.

Whether I trust a government to control a form of communication, or indeed to censor, depends upon the nature of the government in question. Is it democratic, bound by the rule of law, not corrupt, does it as a matter of actual practice excercise its powers with honour and respect to convention &tc.?

>This doesn't mean that any local government is able to decide for itself what constitues obscenity

Of course it does.

No it doesn't.

Looks like we'll only be able to solve this with relevant authority, since you failed to produce any to back up your statements, allow me.

1. The test for obscenity in Roth is "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest." Note the community standards are local only in the sense that they are to be determined (rather obviously) with respect to the standards in the state in which the respective obscenity law has been enacted (since the regulation of obscenity per se falls to the states). Given that obscenity is a question of fact, in practice this will come down to what the members of the jury consider "contemporary community standards" to be. Note also that the court raised the bar in Miller where two additional elements were required.

This is what allows municipal governments to outlaw strip joints and video porn stores.

Who then have the option of going to the courts to challenge the ordinance. If you read the case law I think you will see that both ought to win. Strip joints because they can argue artistic merit and because what they do is generally not "hard core", and porn shops because it is the obscenity of each individual article they sell that must be determined. Of course when it comes to issuing licenses to carry on business, or zoning commercial activities &tc the municipal government can make it awfully difficult to operate.

>You really think a court which ruled child pornography is protected speech

I think you misspoke here.

But you only think that because of you're not up to speed on this topic. You can rectify your ignorance somewhat by reading Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition . To summarize briefly. What makes child porn illegal is the involvement of children in its production. Writing, drawings, or photographs of underdeveloped adult models proporting to be minors is not illegal per se. Of course on a case by case basis such child porn might well be judged obscene, but by default child porn is protected speech.

government is the only entity capable of enforcing censorship at gunpoint

Lemme guess, you don't live in Sicily ;) I take your point. However, this does not necessarily mean that government can enforce censorship as effectivly as private bodies. Look at the information sieve that was the Soviet Union and compare that to the very effective censorship excercise by Walmart.

That makes government the entity you least want in control of any form of communication.

Whether I trust a government to control a form of communication, or indeed to censor, depends upon the nature of the government in question. Is it democratic, bound by the rule of law, not corrupt, does it as a matter of actual practice excercise its powers with honour and respect to convention &tc.?

You fail to see that these are explicit definitions of what the branches can do, Simple reasoning shows that since the constitution explicitly states what they may do then they may not do anything else.
This is further evidenced by the
Tenth Amendment

Ah but didn't you know if the fed want to they can get away with almost anything, all they have to do is say the Interstate Commerce clause gives them the authority, just as the Supreme Court ruled in the Ashcroft vs RAICH case.

It's a luxury. That not everyone can afford. So Disney is offering a plan for parents to sell some children into slavery, so the others can have a lifetime pass to Disney World. It's a private corporation, private property, not a "State", so the 14th Amendment doesn't apply.

Enslaved? By Disney? I want some of whatever you are smoking... besides Disney is a private corporation. They can do pretty much anything they want.

Here is a link to the US Constitution. Find for me the right to spend $50+ to spend two thirds of your day standing in line for one minute attractions. Or maybe you are concerned with your right to buy an $8 burger/fries/coke combo. When the federales line up behind you with cattle prods herding you through the finger scanners, then maybe you will have a point.

Findlaw.com

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/ chapters/15/subchapters/iv/sections/section_426.ht ml

Under "The term ''covert agent'' means"

"(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States"

You haven't heard it because the main stream media hasn't said a thing about it. Read, or listen, to some alternative media sources and you might get some more facts.

IANAL, but a case might be made for aiding and abetting. Presumably, the Aussie judge felt something similar applied to this case.

Of course, the question in my mind is why the litigants didn't let this guy keep going for a while, and use his site as a list of targets to sue; get him as an acessory AFTER you have all of the other cases. I guess filing costs would be too high, probably.

Even with this, it's not clear that the ISP should be held responsible -- it was NOT clear that such hyperlinking was in fact a violation prior to this case.

Actually when it comes to intellectual property lawsuits I think some of the most disturbingly stupid are convicts who sue prosecuters and judges for using their names in legal proceedings because the inmate claims copyright infringment of the intellectual property rights to THEIR NAME.

http://news.findlaw.com/court_tv/s/20040317/17mar2 004113118.html

You may want to check your own law. A work is not considered published until it has been published in some form. That it has been printed with the intent to publish is not sufficient. You may also want to read Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. The Nation Enters for a ruling by the Supreme court where the Nation obtained a printed copy of Ford's memoairs before release, much like this case.

You may note that a) it is considered unpublished, despite having changed hands because it was not officially published and b) the Supreme courts holds that the "right of first publication" counts extremely strongly against fair use. That means that the people who have recieved the book have no right to quote even small bits. The Nation used 300 to 400 words. So I wouldn't be so cocky if I were you.

Kjella

You *respect* their business tactics?

Jesus. Words fail me.

Do some reading, please.

Or here

It's not a matter of one person trespassing on the service of another person, but rather of the recording of phone conversations, which bears on the whole "hey, you became a broadcaster of your own free will" thing. In the days of analog cordless phones it used to be common that cordless phones could be heard faintly on neighbors' handsets or baby monitors, or with radio scanners.

Now, consider that anyone having conversations of an even vaguely secretive nature - that is, conversations they wouldn't want public - would be a fool to use such a cordless phone. However, people did, and sometimes their neighbors recorded the conversations, and the whole situation wound up in court. The case is McKamey v. Roach. The court found exactly the standard being advocated here - that there was no expectation of privacy when speaking over an open-air medium. In other words, your neighbors are completely free to record your conversations when they're conducted over analog broadcast signals. The courts have already ruled on this: if you become a broadcaster, you give up the right to refuse people to receive your signal, even if you became a broadcaster by buying a piece of consumer electronic equipment.

The obvious extension to sniffing unencrypted wireless packets is left as an exercise for the reader.

Parent post is modded "3 interestingly wrong".
It should modded down, overrated or perhaps troll.
A single counterexample out of dozens:
Reno v ACLU
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-511.html
EFF's attorney was Mike Godwin.
Maybe you've heard of him.

Knock yourself out:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?c ourt=Fed&navby=case&no=011301

"Because of the presumption of validity, 35 U.S.C. 282 (1994), a defendant must show invalidity by facts supported by clear and convincing evidence. Dana Corp. v. Am. Axle & Mfg., 279 F.3d 1372, 1375, 61 USPQ2d 1609, 1610 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Invalidity often entails evidence that prior art renders the patent either anticipated or obvious. "Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102 means lack of novelty, and is a question of fact. To anticipate, every . . . limitation of the claimed invention must be found in a single prior art reference." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). Moreover, "[w]hen a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Id."

----------------

You can't have a presumption of validaty unless the patent office is entitled to make a subjective judgement, otherwise there would be nothing to presume. The presumption of validaty would be the same as the presumption of invalidity!

"The simplest way to state this is that the patent office falls under the executive branch of the government which does not have the power to interpret the law as it pleases"

The court sets the high water and low water marks, they are free to interpret between these marks in accordance with the law.
They *must* be taking a position when they choose the high water mark, yet they are equally free to choose the low water mark.

Do the justices reveal their deliberation process?

Yes.

The justices write majority and minority opinions based on whether they were on the "winning" or "losing" side of the argument. Typically one on each side will write the opinion and everyone else endorses it, although sometimes some justices will write their own opinion by themselves.

Do the justices reveal their deliberation process?

Yes.

The justices write majority and minority opinions based on whether they were on the "winning" or "losing" side of the argument. Typically one on each side will write the opinion and everyone else endorses it, although sometimes some justices will write their own opinion by themselves.

I'd encourage people to read the dissent, for the sole reason that Justice Scalia joined with it.

For people who don't know, Scalia is supposed to be one of the conservative voices on the bench and is well known for his thorough dissents.

It also doesn't hurt that The Chief Justice joined in the dissenting opinion.

Actually the Justices are quite capable of reading, the 5th amendment clearly reads, as you so nicely pointed out: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In the Kelo v. New London case the homeowners who refused to give up their land WERE offered compensation for their private property. When they refused, then and only then were they lots ordered condemned. This actions would be exactly the same if the land was being used for a road, park, or other more generaly though of public use facility.

The entire court document is here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=000&invol=04-108 and is worth a read. Besides handing out decision the Justices pump out some well written documents.

"Health Market Science"? They sound like peddlers of human flesh. Diseased flesh. They really do sound like the worst kind of sleazy scumbags, and that's just their name. Harvesting open relays and persecuting a whistleblower, and maybe even bribing a judge, all sound like the least of their crimes. If there were any justice, the local DA would accept Salzenberg's report as a criminal complaint, and call off the dogs. But of course there's no justice, or HMS' mere allegations would never be enough to threaten the security of this person's home, papers and effects.

Referring to the Congressman Hansen story: I am unable to find a citation for the case at the Findlaw archive. Does anyone have evidence of this case's existence?

Anyway...it's kinda unusual. Though I dare say, once it's been used a a few times I could imagine a Supreme Court judge deciding it's not unusual any more.

They did, in Eldred. We lost...

The 2nd Amendment is not just about protecting yourself from government. It's also about having the freedom to protect yourself from harm. If you are entirely dependent on the government to protect yourself from physical harm, you aren't really free.

Fair enough - which well-regulated militia have you joined?

competitors might not have to be given access to cable networks, but perhaps municipalities could seize cable bandwidth for the purpose of providing high-speed internet...

The actual text of the ruling: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=04-480

How can they directly contradict a previous ruling? How is it possible that the constitution says one thing one day and another another day... Reform time? The supreme court is becoming more and more pointless every day IMHO....

I'll bite: first of all, the previous rulings could have been wrong (try Korematsu v. US). Secondly, a good part of the US legal community (especially on the so-called "liberal" side), believes that the meaning of the constitution does depend on time. For example, that a citizen's right "due process of law" could encompass different things 200 years after it was written. Just becase the internet didn't exist in 1790 doesn't mean that your due process rights don't extend there, right?

I happen to be much more of an originalist than the "changing community standard re: death penalty" supreme court, but the "living document" view is not outright wrong.

Finally, the circumstances of this case might be different from the last one. Hence the differing result!

yea, as I posted above I run a double-confirmation opt-in email list for local adult clubs (the contents of the emails could be considered porn on occasion, it's that damn "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person" clause that gets us, i mean, that encompases a hell of a lot of calvin klein commercials too...) - does this mean I need to confirm the age and residency of everyone who signs up (and confirms!) to the list? that would be waaaaaaay too stupid. but it's utah. so i'm worried.

You can't "hide behind" free speech. The right to free speech is not a right not to suffer consequences for your speech. It is simply a right against the government from having your speech forcibly surpressed. In point of fact, public school students do in fact have free speech rights in school (see Tinker v. Des Moine), subject to reasonable "time, place, and manner" restrictions just like everybody else.